Mutations do not produce real change

[enoob57]

You sit in a world where there is more that is unanswered than answered and upon this small pedestal (very small)

I agree there is more unanswered than answered, that means there's more to explore and more to learn. It's better than being arrogant and claiming I have the answers when all I have are myths that I cling to even when the evidence shows me that I'm wrong.

I have read the endorsements... the honest ones show where there is fact and where there is not! Yours is the dishonest side where you scream evidence and proof -where science would say no you are saying yes.... perhaps the Lord will allow you to find Him in your obstinacies, I do not know, but one can always hope! Try standing back and observe the whole picture focus on the macro other than the micro for like we agree the information is endless and how do you suppose that has come about in a system that says its ending? Love, Steven

[Valoran]

You make it sound so simple to occur, yet when pressed for details you can't understand the question. Oy!

If , say, canines and felines have a common ancestor, at some point dramatic mutations in different populations occurred that would require the two to be classified not as different species by as different families. Most likely, were this common ancestor to be discovered, it would be classified as a different family than both, would it not? Or as one but not the other?

Forget percentages, how many genes would have had to have mutated in order for such changes to occur?

How many genes were mutated even between homonid families? (Again, number of genes, not percentages.)

In most instances, the common ancestor of X and Y would most likely be classified in the same family as either X or Y. There is nothing to say that the common ancestor must suddenly become extinct after it spawns a new branch of organisms.

As for your other questions: as have been pointed out, they're nonsensical because you apparently have no understanding of how genetics and taxonomy works. First off, there is no exact correlation between a genotype and a phenotype. How many genes are needed to affect any particular change depends on the type of change and organism in question, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution to your question. Secondly, you need to remember that the Linnaeus taxonomy system precedes our knowledge of evolution. It does not allow for in-betweens, as organisms must be classified as either one species or another. At borderline cases, where a transitional species displays characteristics of both the species preceding and succeeding it, its classification is often arbitrary. It's really like asking the question: at which point does the color red become the color orange?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Secondarily, find SECULAR scientists who doubt evolution.

Dr. David Berlinski.

See, we can provide them, and then you’ll just find some sort of excuse to write them off as well, won’t you?

If a creationist doubts evolution then what do I care? I can feel pretty certain that their religious obligations may have gotten in the way of their scientific judgment.

And we could just as readily conclude that naturalism is getting in the way of the scientific judgment of the secularists.

Dr. Kurt Wise on your list is a classic creationist, from his article "In six days"

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

This is not the mind of a scientist, it's the mind of someone who's high on religion.

And yet Richard Dawkins comments that ‘we must constantly remind ourselves that what we see was not designed, i.e. there is no intelligence or purpose behind what we see’.

Funny how double standards work, in that if the Christian knows that God did it then they're unscientific, but if the naturalist has to constantly remind themselves that despite all appearances to the contrary they actually know for certain that 'Nature did it blindly' then they are scientific.

But actually, the theist has good reason to trust the Bible over the guesstimations of people, while the naturalist enjoys no such luxury for their bias.

As William Lane Craig puts it, God in our lives is an experienced reality and we always trust our experiences unless we have good reason to suppose we are delusional. I know that reality is reliably and repeatable because of experience. I know that the past was not created a second ago with the appearance of age because I have experienced the past and have no reason to question the reliability of my experiences.

God is an experienced reality in our lives and we have very good reasons for believing that our experiences are valid and no good reasons to suppose that it’s delusion.

Therefore, even if the evidence were to turn against us (which it hasn’t) we’d be like the man accused of a crime who knew he didn’t commit that crime. As the prosecution piles up evidence, would it matter how compelling that evidence would seem to outside observers against your case, if you knew that you didn’t commit the crime?

Yes, we have a bias, but so do you and so does everyone else, so the question is not who is unbiased, but was it the correct bias by which to be biased.

It’s far less of a barrier to comprehension to understand and admit your bias, and far more restrictive and narrow-minded to suppose secular scientists are somehow free from such constraints.

At least Kurt’s honest with himself and with his audience, but I don’t see the same integrity in chanting a mantra that despite all appearances to the contrary “Nature did it”.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

This is just a hunch but do you think Dawkins is including himself when he says "we"? My thought is that he's talking to people in general that just because something may have the appearance of design, does not mean that it was.

Nope. It was in a debate and its a sentiment he repeats that things strongly appear designed. And sure that doesn't mean that it was designed but it's very rational to suppose that something that appears designed was designed and very irrational to constantly oppose the possibility that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and sounds like a duck that it might actually indicate that it is a duck.

It's very much in line with the famous Richard Lewontin quote "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door".

Isn't that funny that you're quick to attack one person's scientific integrity because of their agenda and without knowing the context defend someone else's?

Problem is I have to trust your "experience", I can't examine it and criticize it [or praise it as being valid].

No you don't. The Bible says "Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded" (James 4:8); and "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool" (Isaiah 1:18).

Examine it for yourself. Pretending it's my job to convince you won't abdicate you from responsibility.

What about other people who have "experiences" that involve spiritual beings, are they just as valid as yours?

First of all I believe they do have experiences. You know that in the Bible we learn about Satan and how he's committed to deceiving humanity, right? So it simply stands to reason that if such is true people would have such experiences.

But notice that I said that I have good arguments to support that I am not delusional.

I also have good arguments to show that others are.

But that's a whole separate argument and therefore a Red Herring fallacy.

If so which ones and how do you sift through valid and invalid scenarios?

The same way I sift through ever other epistemological problem, I examine the evidence.

I've divided the belief systems up into categories and organized simple lines of argumentation based on whether a belief is Mysticism, Animism, Philosophy, or some form of Deism/Theism.

It's systematic and really not that mind-boggling. This is an invented problem, and in no other area of life would anyone be content to shrug their shoulders and pretend they were blind to how to investigate further.

This may be impressive to you but it isn't to me.

Impressive to me? What does that even mean? How could it be impressive to me?

And why would it be impressive to you?

What are you talking about?

[Guest]

,,,, come back and let me know when you're ready to have a meaningful discussion.

.... I never asked you to engage in discussion with me, I'm not interested in your spiritual experiences or delusions....

Well Dear One, You Are Here So Of Course You Asked And Are Still Asking For Engagement

The outer Court is an area where we allow anyone who wishes to learn more about our belief to ask questions and learn. Those who join Worthy who do not claim Christ as Savior will be designated "nonbeliever'. This designation will mean that they will only be able to post in the Outer Court area. They can read every part of the Forums, but their discussions will be limited to one area.

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek. Psalms 27:8

And The Lord Jesus Is Neither Delusional

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me:

I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. Deuteronomy 32:39-40

Nor Is He Uninteresting

As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about.

This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.

And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake. Ezekiel 1:28

And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee.

And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me. Ezekiel 2:1-2

To Those With Knowledge And Truth

Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:

She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,

How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you,

I will make known my words unto you. Proverbs 1:20-23

And Who Will Worship The Source Of All Things Good

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1:17

~

Think You Can Ever Give Credit Where Credit Is Do

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:10-13

Or Will You Too Spit In The Face Of Your Maker

But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?

Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him,

and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands. Mark 14:61-65

Be Wise

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,

behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying,

Where is he that is born King of the Jews?

for we have seen his star in the east,

and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:1-2

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[~candice~]

I've spent considerable time in this thread removing posts (by many posters, not just one) that are insulting or show a complete lack of respect for other posters in the thread.

Please stay on topic and leave your offensive and disrespectful remarks at the door, or the thread will be permanently closed.

[Valoran]

I'm sure that there are people here who would love to drag this thread into the realm of insults and personal insinuations instead of sticking to a technical discussion, and have been trying to do exactly that, but what I'm really interested is in hearing the creationist viewpoint on this issue.

I assume that even the staunchest anti-evolutionist is sufficiently educated to know that the phenotype of an organism is entirely dependent on the genetic "blueprint". What then makes it so impossible to believe that changing an organism's genes will also change its physical appearance, behavior, and characteristics? Anti-evolutionists constantly insist that there is a barrier that limits mutation and prevents organisms from evolving into other "kinds" - putting aside the ever-flexible creationist definition of "kinds" for the moment, what exactly is this barrier, how does it work, what are its limits, when and how has it ever been studied, and where is the evidence for it?

[Valoran]

The phenotype of an organism is largely dependent on the genotype, but not entirely. During embyonic development you can get variations in phenotype wholly apart from the geneotype. This is seen in cloned animals where the genotype is 100% the same yet the phenotype is varied from differences in embryonic development, i.e. variation in hormone levels from mother etc.

... as well as phenotypes developed in response to external stimuli (e.g. physical exercise). Yes, I believe I forgot to mention those. Thanks for pointing that out.

[MorningGlory]

The phenotype of an organism is largely dependent on the genotype, but not entirely. During embyonic development you can get variations in phenotype wholly apart from the geneotype. This is seen in cloned animals where the genotype is 100% the same yet the phenotype is varied from differences in embryonic development, i.e. variation in hormone levels from mother etc.

... as well as phenotypes developed in response to external stimuli (e.g. physical exercise). Yes, I believe I forgot to mention those. Thanks for pointing that out.

Maybe you could provide credible sources of your statements? How do you know these points are scientifically sound? Do you work in this field?

[Valoran]

Maybe you could provide credible sources of your statements? How do you know these points are scientifically sound? Do you work in this field?

I don't work in the field, but I paid attention during biology class in high school. Assuming you're from the United States, I think you can easily find the answers to your own questions by flipping through a high school or college textbook.